Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1438550
| From | Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router |
| Date | 2016-07-07 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rSgrE-6LS-31@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <rRBHQ-5kY-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rRBRv-5oU-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rRCaR-5LK-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rRSz0-850-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <rRVwR-1tj-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi Marc,
On 07/06/2016 03:50 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> I think that's where part the misunderstanding comes from.
>> IMHO the output line is not a direct function of the input line.
>> Any of the 64 IRQ lines entering the "old controller" (irq-tango.c) can be
>> routed to any of its 3 outputs.
>
> Then the current DT binding isn't properly describing the HW.
Ok, thanks, so it is not a good example then.
>> In a nutshell:
>> - "old controller": routes [0...N] => GIC inputs [2...4]
>> - "new controller": routes [0...M] => GIC inputs [0...23]
>>
>> So, when we think about it, if the "new DT" specified 24 domains, it would
>> be equivalent of the "old DT" with 3 domains, right?
>
> Indeed, but I consider the "old" binding to be rather misleading. It
> should have been described as a router too, rather than hardcoding
> things in DT. Granted, it doesn't matter much when you only have 3
> possible output lines. But with 24 outputs, that becomes much more relevant.
I see.
>> So, putting aside routing considerations and the discussion above, I think
>> a simpler question is: if the domains should not be described in the DT,
>> how can we define the IRQ sharing in the DT?
>
> You could have a set of sub-nodes saying something like this:
>
> mux-hint0 {
> inputs = <1 45 127>;
> }
>
> mux-hint1 {
> inputs = <2 33>;
> }
>
> (or maybe you can have that as direct properties, but you get the idea).
> Here, you have two output pins dedicated to muxed interrupts (assuming
> they are all level interrupts), and the last 22 can be freely allocated
> as direct routes.
>
Ok, I'll try to do that.
So, aside from the DT issues (that is, that it is describing domains),
would it be ok to create a domain for each of the outputs?
Because I was looking at:
- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/samsung,exynos4210-combiner.txt
- drivers/irqchip/exynos-combiner.c
- arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210.dtsi
and what I see is that the DT basically list all outputs [0...15] connected
to the parent interrupt controller, although the driver does not creates
separate domains, just one. Then it attaches a chained handler for each of
the outputs. On the .map callback it attaches a irqchip to the domain.
There is also:
- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/omap/crossbar.txt
- drivers/irqchip/irq-crossbar.c
- arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi
This one creates a domain hierarchy linked to the parent domain and uses
irq_domain_alloc_irqs_parent() and irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip() to attach
a irqchip to the domain on the .alloc callback.
Both use a single domain, as opposed to irq-tango.c which creates 3 domains.
Right now irq-tango_v2.c is supposed to create one domain per output (if
so the DT says)
Are there guidelines regarding that?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Sebastian
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> - 2016-06-30 18:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr> - 2016-07-04 14:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> - 2016-07-05 14:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> - 2016-07-05 16:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr> - 2016-07-05 17:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> - 2016-07-05 18:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> - 2016-07-06 13:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> - 2016-07-06 18:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> - 2016-07-05 17:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> - 2016-07-05 18:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> - 2016-07-05 18:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> - 2016-07-05 18:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> - 2016-07-05 19:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> - 2016-07-05 19:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-07-05 21:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> - 2016-07-06 11:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-07-06 11:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> - 2016-07-06 12:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> - 2016-07-06 16:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> - 2016-07-06 18:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> - 2016-07-06 12:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> - 2016-07-06 16:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> - 2016-07-07 14:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH v1] irqchip: add support for SMP irq router Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> - 2016-07-07 14:50 +0200
csiph-web